🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <45efns$p1h@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, cyronwode@aol.com
(Cyronwode) wrote:

[deletia]
> 
> Excuse me? You have blocked your PUBLIC gateway to AOL users? 
> 
[deletia]
> 
> The real point is this: as a public institution, supported by tax-payers'
> (local, state and federal) money, you are telling me that you are unfairly
> and without forewarning discriminating against portions of the public
> simply because of the name of their carrier, WITHOUT TELLING THEM SO,  and
> without allowing them to protest this unannounced practice in any way. 
> 
[deletia]

UT, like almost every other public institution, has a specific mission.
The mission of UT is primarily to educate its students. Anything that UT
does outside its mission is basically a favor. There is no moral or legal
requirement that UT continue to perform this favor, nor is there any
reason to think that this is a misuse of public funds. If your argument
were correct, UT would be doing something unfair every time that it
restricted the use of its facilities and services to its students,
faculty, and staff. But UT's actions are not unfair and are not
discrimination since you can become a student at UT if you so desire.

It may have been impolite for UT not to send you a bounce message, but
this too is fair and legal. No one is morally or legally required to make
public announcements regarding services that are not officially publicly
available. In addition, your own message shows that you have protested
UT's decision, and thus there can be no sense in which UT has not allowed
you to protest.

Basically, you haven't a leg to stand on. My suggestion to you (and to
others who are lurking) is that you think more carefully about the issues
involved in a situation before you complain publicly. Our society is full
of people who are too quick to cry "Wolf!" or "Foul!"

>>Dave